The NETWORK ROUNDTABLE at the UNIVERSITY OF

VIRGINIA

Making Invisible Work Visible:

Using Social Network Analysis
to Support Strategic Collaboration
Rob Cross
262 Monroe Hall
McIntire School of Commerce
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434.924.6475
robcross@virginia.edu
Stephen P. Borgatti
Boston College, Carroll School of Management
Andrew Parker
IBM Institute for Knowledge Management

Abstract
With efforts to de-layer organizations and reduce functional boundaries, coordination and
work of importance increasingly occur through networks of informal relations rather than
channels tightly prescribed by formal reporting structures or detailed work processes.
However, while organizations are moving to network forms through joint ventures,
alliances and other collaborative relationships executives generally pay little attention to
assessing and supporting informal networks within their own organizations. Working
with a consortium of 23 companies over the past eighteen months we have found social
network analysis a valuable means of facilitating collaboration in strategically important
groups such as top leadership networks, strategic business units, new product
development teams, communities of practice, joint ventures and mergers. This article
outlines how social network analysis can be effective in: 1) Promoting collaboration
within a strategically important group; 2) Supporting critical junctures in networks that
cross functional, hierarchical or geographic boundaries and 3) Ensuring integration of a
network following restructuring or other strategic change initiatives. By making informal
networks visible, social network analysis helps managers systematically assess and
support strategically important collaboration.

1
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

Making Invisible Work Visible

Over the past decade or so significant restructuring efforts have resulted in
organizations with fewer hierarchical levels and more permeable internal and external
boundaries. While presumably promoting efficiency and flexibility, a byproduct of these
restructuring efforts is that coordination and work increasingly occur through informal
networks of relationships rather than through channels tightly prescribed by formal
reporting structures or detailed work processes. For example, informal networks cutting
across core work processes or holding together new product development initiatives are
not found on formal organizational charts but often promote organizational flexibility,
innovation, efficiency and quality of products or services by virtue of effectively pooling
unique expertise. Supporting collaboration and work in these informal networks is
increasingly important for organizations competing on knowledge and an ability to
innovate and adapt.
Unfortunately, critical informal networks often compete with and are fragmented
by such aspects of organizations as formal structure, work processes, geographic
dispersion, human resource practices, leadership style and culture. This is particularly
problematic in knowledge intensive settings where management is counting on
collaboration among employees with different expertise. People rely very heavily on their
network of relationships to find information and solve problems --- one of the most
consistent findings in the social science literature is that who you know often has a great
deal to do with what you come to know.1 Yet both practical experience and scholarly

For example, research has shown that relationships are critical for obtaining information (e.g., Simmel,
1923; Granovetter, 1973; Allen, 1977; Burt, 1992; Rogers, 1995; Szulanski, 1996) learning how to do your
work (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991; Brown & Duguid, 1991 & 2000; Orr, 1996; Wenger, 1998; Wenger &
2
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

research indicate significant difficulty in getting people with different expertise,

backgrounds and problem solving styles to effectively integrate their unique perspectives.2
Simply moving boxes on an organizational chart is not sufficient to ensure effective
collaboration among high-end knowledge workers.
Movement toward de-layered, flexible organizations and emphasis on supporting
collaboration in knowledge intensive work has made it increasingly important for
executives and managers to attend to informal networks within their organizations.
Performance implications of effective informal networks can be significant as the rapidly
growing social capital tradition has indicated at the individual, team and organizational
levels (e.g., Coleman, 1988; Burt, 1992 & 1997; Hansen, 1999; Podolny & Baron, 1997;
Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1997; Leenders & Gabbay, 1999; Cohen & Prusak, 2000; Lin,
2001). Yet while research indicates ways managers can influence informal networks at
both the individual (Baker, 1994 & 2000) and whole network levels (e.g., Krackhardt,
1992 & 1994; Krackhardt & Hansen, 1993), executives seem to do relatively little to
assess and support critical, but often invisible, informal networks in organizations.3

Snyder, 2000) and collectively solving cognitively complex tasks (e.g., Weick & Roberts, 1993; Hutchins,
1991; Moreland, Argote, Krishnan, 1996; Hollingshead, 1998).
2
It is one problem to learn or act on knowledge with others who think like you (such as in a community of
practice). It is an entirely different problem to do this in diverse social contexts, such as cross-functional
teams, where people often do not share a common vision, language, metrics of performance or even
understanding of the problem itself. For example, sociologists have poignantly demonstrated how correct
information can have little or no impact on critical decision processes (Janis, 1982; Perrow, 1986; Vaughn,
1996). Further, organizational theorists have shown that a persons knowledge can be role constrained
(March & Olsen, 1975; Pentland, 1992) or not acted upon due to motivational or cognitive impediments
resulting from introducing knowledge into diverse social contexts (Dougherty, 1992; Fiol, 1994; Boland &
Ramkirshnan, 1995; Szulanski, 1996).
3
To be sure, academics and practitioners have discussed shifts to network forms via mechanisms such as
joint ventures, partnerships, strategic alliances and R&D consortia for some time now (Miles & Snow,
1986, 1994 & 1995; Handy, 1994; Heckscher, 1994; Galbraith, 1995). Such forms are presumed to allow
for the effective integration of knowledge and capabilities across organizational entities. However, there
has been much less practical attention paid to how informal networks of employees in either traditional or
networked organizations facilitate or impede organizational effectiveness.
3
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

Over the past eighteen months we have conducted research to determine how
organizations can better support work occurring in informal networks of employees.
Working with a consortium of Fortune 500 companies and government agencies we
assessed collaboration and work in 29 informal networks from 23 different organizations.
In all cases, the networks we studied provided strategic and operational value to the
embedding organization by enabling employees to effectively collaborate and integrate
disparate expertise. We targeted such networks as a first goal of our research was to better
define scenarios where conducting a social network analysis would likely yield sufficient
benefit to justify the investment of time and energy on the part of the organization. We
also worked closely with each organization when providing feedback as a second goal of
our work was to develop generalized insight into analyses that were informative and
actionable for practitioners as well as interventions resulting from a social network
perspective. While we enrich our points below with four case examples, they should be
seen as exemplars drawn from the 29 networks we worked with in this research. We now
turn to examples and practical guidelines regarding the use of social network analysis to
improve collaboration and work in strategically important, informal networks.

Assessing and Supporting Informal Networks

Put an organizational chart (the formal structure) in front of most any employee
and they will tell you the boxes and lines only partially reflect the way work gets done in
their organization. Informal relationships among employees are often far more reflective
of the way work happens in an organization than relationships established by position
within the formal structure. However, these informal relationships are often invisible or
at least only partially understood by managers --- a problem that is growing with de4
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

layering of organizations, virtual work and globalization. While managers often think
they understand the networks around them, studies show that they can vary widely in the
accuracy of their network perceptions (e.g., Krackhardt, 1987 & 1990; Casciaro, 1998).
As outlined in Krackhardt & Hansen (1993: p. 104), Although managers may be able to
diagram accurately the social links of the five or six people closest to them, their
assumptions about employees outside their immediate circle are usually off the mark.
Social network analysis (SNA) can be an invaluable tool for systematically
assessing and then intervening at critical points within an informal network. Of course
social network techniques have been around for some time. The idea of drawing a
picture (called a sociogram) of who is connected to whom for a specific set of people is
credited to Dr. J.L. Moreno (1934), an early social psychologist who envisioned mapping
the entire population of New York City. Cultural anthropologists independently invented
the notion of social networks to provide a new way to think about social structure and the
concepts of role and position (Nadel, 1957; Mitchell 1969), an approach that culminated
in rigorous algebraic treatments of kinship systems (White, 1963; Boyd, 1969). At the
same time, in mathematics, the nascent field of graph theory (Harary, 1969) began to
grow rapidly, providing the underpinnings for the analytical techniques of modern social
network analysis. The new methods were particularly embraced in sociology, where
relational theoretical perspectives had been important since the dawn of the field
(Durkheim, 1893; Simmel, 1922).
Today, the scholarly discipline is growing in the field of management as
researchers have clearly demonstrated the extent to which informal networks pervade and
effect life and work within organizations (e.g., Lincoln, 1982; Wellman & Berkowitz,
5
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

1988; Nohria & Eccles, 1992; Andrews & Knoke, 1999). A particularly important line of
inquiry in this work has been to understand forces influencing the emergence of informal
networks within organizations (Monge & Eisenberg, 1987; Monge & Contractor, 2000).
Through such work we have learned that communication is likely to occur in
homophilous4 relationships and have evidence of the role of similarity between people in
increasing the likelihood of communication (e.g., Zenger & Lawrence, 1989; Ibarra, 1992
& 1995; McPherson, et al 2001). At the same time we have also learned that design of an
organization can have a strong influence on the pattern of informal networks via formal
structure (e.g., Lincoln, 1982; Stevenson, 1990; Stevenson & Gilly, 1993; Brass, 1994),
physical proximity (e.g., Allen, 1977; Monge, Rothman, et al, 1985) and nature of the
task (Bavelas, 1950; Leavitt, 1951; Shaw, 1964).
This and other research has begun to help us think about means of assessing and
supporting informal networks within organizations. Yet while clearly informing the field
of management, the majority of this work is found in academic outlets often inaccessible
to practitioners due to the technical nature of the publications and network terminology
employed. In addition, these pieces intend to advance science and so do not as a matter
of practice make clear to managers the ways in which network analysis can be applied to
organizational issues. While the outcomes of such research might influence decisionmakers in terms of policy variables a more contextualized perspective is needed to help
practitioners apply network analysis to their specific organizational concerns.
At the most rudimentary level, we have found that visually assessing the pattern
of relationships that hold a certain group together can reveal a number of interesting and

Homophily refers to the extent to which communicating individuals are similar (Lazersfeld & Merton,
1964).
6
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

actionable points. For example, identifying people that are highly central in networks
(and so disproportionately impact a group by controlling information or decision-making)
can help a manager consider how to reallocate informational domains or decision-making
rights so that the group as a whole is more effective. Alternatively, understanding who is
peripheral in a network and crafting ways to engage these people is also an important
means of ensuring that expertise resident in a given network is being effectively utilized.
Particularly in todays age of turnover it is increasingly important to get people connected
more and more quickly so that they are productive for an organization. And of course
assessing junctures in networks that are fragmented across functional or hierarchical
boundaries (or detecting sub-groups) can be particularly informative for social or
technical interventions that help to integrate disparate groups.5
While social network information can be obtained in a variety of ways, the most
pragmatic means in organizational settings is typically through surveys. Very
informative social network diagrams can be generated from 10-15 minute surveys
assessing information or knowledge flow amongst members of a group. In this process,
the first step is to identify an informal network where effective collaboration and
knowledge sharing has a significant impact on the organizations operations or strategy.
Often these groups do not appear on a formal organizational chart yet their ability to
collaborate and pool disparate expertise is critical to the current and future success of an
organization. As a result in the first stages of a social network analysis it is often
important to push executives beyond groups defined by the formal organizational chart to
those that might cross functional or hierarchical boundaries (e.g., new product
5

Social network researchers have also developed a wide range of quantitative analyses and tools for
assessing networks. While beyond the scope of this paper, readers interested in more depth on this front
7
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

development, communities of practice or top leadership networks). These groups often

go unrecognized and unsupported even when their interactions underlie organizational
capabilities or support strategically important innovation.
Conducting a social network survey is a straightforward process of obtaining a list
of all people in the defined network and simply asking all members of the group to
characterize their relationship with each other. In this process it is important to ensure
that the kinds of relationships measured are appropriate for the task at hand and not
unnecessarily inflammatory. Organizations are very different in their tolerance for
disclosure of various kinds of social relations. In some, we have been asked to map
relationships of trust and power while in others we have been asked to disguise names on
all relationship diagrams (including more innocuous ones such as who works with
whom). One of the most powerful ways to apply SNA as a diagnostic tool and a catalyst
for change is to put peoples names on a network diagram and make the diagram
available to all group members as a basis for dialogue. However, such diagrams can be
sensitive, depending on the kinds of network questions asked and the culture of the
specific organization. As a result, we pay considerable attention to shaping the questions
asked so that they are helpful to the specific issue an organization is grappling with while
at the same time not unnecessarily disruptive to existing relationships.
As a guide we have outlined several important relationships and reasons for
targeting these relationships in Appendix 1. The primary focus of our research lay with
establishing applications of social network analysis as a diagnostic tool for managers
attempting to promote collaboration and knowledge sharing in important networks.
Through this process we found SNA uniquely effective in three ways: 1) Promoting
should turn to Scott (2000) or Wasserman & Faust 8(1994) for an introductory treatment.
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

effective collaboration within a strategically important group; 2) Supporting critical

junctures in networks that cross functional, hierarchical or geographic boundaries and 3)
Ensuring integration within groups following strategic restructuring initiatives.

Promoting effective collaboration within a strategically important group.

Social network analysis can be a very effective tool for promoting collaboration and
knowledge sharing within important groups such as core functions of an organization,
research and development departments or strategic business units. For example, in one
global consulting organization we worked with a highly skilled group that was
commissioned to provide thought leadership and specialized support to the organizations
knowledge management consultants. This group was composed of people with either
advanced degrees or extensive industry experience in strategy and organizational design
or technical fields such as data warehousing or information architecture. By integrating
these highly specialized skill sets, leadership of the consultancy felt the firm could
provide a holistic knowledge management solution that would differentiate it from
competitors focusing on solely technical or organizational solutions. However, the
partner leading this group felt intuitively that the team was not leveraging its abilities as
effectively as possible and asked us to conduct a social network analysis of information
flow within the group.
Our analysis confirmed the partners intuition. As shown in the top half of
Exhibit 1, the information sharing network revealed not one group at all but two distinct
sub-groups. Interestingly enough the group had become divided on precisely the
dimension it needed to be connected as it was the groups unique skill sets that turned out
9
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

to account for the fragmentation of this network. The group on the left side of the
network was skilled in the softer issues of strategy or organizational design, often
focusing on cultural interventions or other aspects of organizations to help improve
knowledge creation and sharing. The group on the right was composed of people skilled
in harder technical aspects of knowledge management such as information architecture,
modeling and data warehousing.

|Editors Note: Insert Exhibit 1 About Here|

Over time, members of these two sub-groups had gravitated to each other based
on common interests. These people often worked on projects together and just as
importantly shared common work-related interests in terms of what they read, conference
attendance and working groups within the organization. The problem was that each subgroup had grown to a point of not knowing what people in the other sub-group could do
in a consulting engagement or how to think about involving them in their projects. Thus,
even when there were opportunities in client engagements to incorporate each others
skill sets, this was often not done because neither group knew what the other knew or
how to apply their skill sets to new opportunities. This was despite the fact that the
groups strategic charter was to integrate these unique skill sets and that all aspects of
formal organizational design supported this mission (e.g., reporting structure, common
performance metrics and incentives, etc.).
Conducting the social network analysis provided several intervention
opportunities. A lengthy facilitated session with this group allowed them to assess and
10
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

discuss the relative isolation of the two specialties as well as more pointed concerns about
certain members expertise not being tapped while other members appeared to be
bottlenecks in sharing information. As a result of the discussion around this social
network various changes were made to the groups operations. First, a variety of internal
projects ranging from whitepapers to development of a project tracking database were
jointly staffed with one person from each group. This forced people to work together and
so begin to develop an appreciation of each others unique skills and knowledge. Second,
the partner implemented mixed revenue sales goals so that each of the managers were
accountable for selling projects that included both a technical and organizational
component. This also forced people to find ways to integrate their approaches to
addressing client problems. Finally, several new communication forums were created --including weekly status calls, a short update e-mail done weekly and a project tracking
database that helped each person keep up to date on what other members were doing.
The result of these interventions was significant. Over the course of the next
several months, the group began to sell more work that integrated technical and
organizational skills. And this integration often proved to differentiate the consultancy
from their competition in the sales process. Further, as can be seen in the bottom half of
Exhibit 1, a network analysis conducted nine months later revealed a well-integrated
group that was sharing information much more effectively.
In this case the underlying problem was that each subgroup had grown to a point
of not knowing what the other group knew (and so how to even consider integrating their
expertise in projects). As a result, the interventions undertaken focused on helping to
develop this awareness and not simply implementing a collaborative technology or group
11
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

process intervention that ultimately would not have addressed the underlying need to
create an awareness of each others expertise. Other common factors fragmenting
networks include: 1) hierarchical leadership style; 2) physical dispersion and virtual
work; 3) politics resulting in sub-groups; 4) a not invented here mentality resulting in
networks with dense sub-groups only weakly connected to other sub-groups; and 5)
workflow processes or job descriptions that overload specific roles and slow the group.
Each of these issues demands a different set of interventions; however, social network
analysis, combined with some interviews, makes these interactions visible allowing for a
diagnosis and an appropriate solution.

Supporting critical junctures in networks that cross boundaries. Social

network analysis can also be an effective means of pinpointing breakdowns in informal
networks that cross functional, hierarchical, geographic or organizational boundaries
(e.g., merger or acquisition scenarios, new product development or top leadership
networks). People within these networks must often collaborate effectively for the
organization to benefit despite the fact that they may reside in different physical locations
and/or be held accountable for different financial and operational goals. Social network
analysis provides insight into collaborative behavior within and across boundaries that
can yield a similar purchase on performance improvement opportunities as process
mapping did for reengineering in the early 1990s (Rummler & Brache, 1990; Hammer &
Champy, 1993; Hammer & Stanton, 1995). Reengineering generally focused on handoffs, decision points and the white space in organizational charts to improve
efficiency of work processes. Today concern has shifted to innovation that often requires
12
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

critical collaboration within and between functional units, divisions and even entire
organizations. Network analysis provides us with the means to understand where
collaboration is and is not occurring.

Collaboration Across Functional Boundaries. For example, we mapped the

relationships of one Fortune 500 organizations top 126 executives to assess collaboration
across divisions. This was an organization that had grown by acquisition over several
years with the primary intent that acquired companies would combine their expertise in
developing and taking to market new products and services. The CEO of this
organization had become acutely aware of the need to create a leadership network that
was able to recognize opportunities in one sphere of the network and know enough of
what others in the conglomerate knew to be able to combine the appropriate resources in
response to these opportunities. As there was some evidence that this was not happening,
we were invited to come in and conduct a social network analysis of his top executives
both within and across these acquired organizations.
While various network diagrams were generated in our assessment, the most
insightful view came from a simple table demonstrating collaborative activity amongst
this network of executives. Exhibit 2 outlines a table of the percentage of collaborative
relationships that existed within and between each specific division (out of 100% possible
in each cell). Looking at the table provided an opportunity to learn from practices within
one division and apply these practices in others where the work of each division required
similar levels of collaboration. Similarly, we were also able to determine which of the
merged organizations (termed divisions in Exhibit 2) had integrated well with other
13
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

divisions. For example, a quick review of Exhibit 2 shows that divisions 3 & 4 had a
relatively high degree of collaboration; whereas divisions 1 & 7 had minimal contact.6

|Editors Note: Insert Exhibit 2 About Here|

This simple summary of collaborative activity within and between divisions

provided a great deal of insight into the inner-workings of the organization. The
company had acquired various organizations with the intent that they collaborate in
bringing their offerings to market. However, the social network analysis showed that
there was only limited collaborative activity in pockets of the organization. Various
reasons existed for this. In some settings members of the executive team were not sure
what a given division did and so did not know how to even think about involving them in
their projects. In others, cultural barriers restricted people from seeking information
outside of their own division. And in some the complementarity of product offerings that
was presumed when an acquisition was made did not exist. As a result, different
interventions were applied as appropriate throughout the network; however, it was the
view of collaborative activity afforded by the social network analysis that allowed the
organization to intervene appropriately at these strategic junctures.
Throughout the organizations we worked with in our research we found this kind
of cross-boundary view powerful for identifying points where collaborative activity is not
occurring due to organizational boundaries and providing a more targeted approach to
interventions. It is important to recognize that it is often not the case that you want high

A side benefit of our research program has been development of an extensive database that can be used
for benchmarking purposes.
14
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

collaborative activity among all departments within an organization. People have a finite
amount of time to put into developing and maintaining relationships. With network
analysis, we can begin to take a portfolio approach to considering the constellation of
relationships that is worth investing time and energy to develop and maintain. For
example, in the disguised scenario outlined above, it was not critical that Division 1 be
tightly connected to all other divisions to help the organization meet strategic objectives.
To provide strategic value to the organization, Division 1 really only needed to be well
connected to Divisions 3, 5 and 6. Thus, rather than engage in a company-wide initiative
to improve collaboration, more targeted and ultimately more successful interventions
were employed to facilitate collaboration at specific junctures.
Mapping the pattern of information flow (or, more frequently, lack of flow) across
functional barriers can yield critical insight into where management should target efforts
to promote collaboration that will provide strategic benefit. Quite often initiatives
attempting to promote collaboration and learning take a cultural perspective and usually
struggle with the enormity of the task at hand. In contrast, we have found that by
targeting junctures in networks that hold strategic relevance for an organization it is much
more feasible to intervene where investments in collaboration yield strategic payoff for
the organization. And by tracking changes in networks over time, management and
network participants have a very real way of assessing the impact of interventions on
both the informal network and organizational effectiveness.

Collaboration Across Hierarchical Boundaries. Of course another type of

critical boundary within organizations is not functional but hierarchical. Across the
15
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

various companies in our research we have seen very different network patterns in
relation to hierarchy. Some organizations informal networks are very similar to, and
thus obviously constrained by, the organizations hierarchy. Others are more fluid and
seem to place less of a constraint on whether employees follow the chain of command to
obtain information. What is good or bad depends on the kind of work the organization
does; however, it is interesting diagnostically to see the extent to which hierarchy
conditions information flow and knowledge exchange in a given organization. Just as we
analyzed collaboration across divisional boundaries in the conglomerate above, we can
also assess collaboration and information sharing across hierarchical levels within an
organization.
Alternatively, we can assess how those in positions of formal authority are
embedded in larger networks within their organization. For example, we were asked to
map the top leadership network of a commercial bank. However, rather than just
mapping the top nine members of the management team, we looked at information
seeking and sharing behaviors among the top 62 executives of this organization (SVP
level and above) to understand how this network was collaborating. One particularly
informative view came from assessing the pattern of relationships among the top nine
executives and then between these executives and the overall top 62 executives in the
institution. By pulling out the top nine executives and mapping the flow of information
amongst these executives we could assess the extent to which this group was effectively
collaborating as a decision-making body. Further, by considering this group in the
context of the larger network of 62 people we could also see the extent to which the
executive team tapped into the larger leadership network for informational purposes or
16
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

communicated decisions effectively back to this group. Exhibit 3 shows a simplified

graphic portrayal of this network that identifies connections between the CEO and the
remaining executives in both the executive leadership team and the banks functional
departments. In this diagram the direction of the arrows reflects whom the CEO seeks
out for information or advice and the numbers beside the arrows reflect the number of
people in each department that the CEO turned to.

|Editors Note: Insert Exhibit 3 About Here|

Diagnostically, these kinds of views are important along two fronts. First, by
looking at a completed diagram showing the same relationship patterns for all members
of the top management team we can get a sense of how information tends to enter and
leave this group. The bulk of information that managers use to make decisions comes
from meetings and conversations. SNA provides a way to better understand the way in
which teams might be biased in critical decisions by virtue of the kinds of information
received in discussions with others. Which members of the executive team seem to reach
out to various functional areas (and so likely best understand issues and concerns of these
groups)? Is the executive group seeking information from (or at least listening to) these
people? Are certain functional departments more sought out than others (thereby
potentially representing biases in information this group relies on for strategic decisionmaking)? Given the strategic importance of the decisions that a top management team
makes, understanding their sources and usage of information can provide critical insight
into ways to improve their effectiveness. This of course also holds for other groups such
17
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

as new product development initiatives or process redesign efforts where one hopes that
the teams are effectively reaching out to relevant and balanced sources of information
prior to making critical decisions.
In terms of executive development, these kinds of views can also be highly
effective in uncovering potential biases in a single persons network. A long-standing
finding in communication research is that people tend to interact with people that are
similar to themselves on a set of socially important attributes, such as race, gender and
age (e.g., Marsden, 1988; Carley, 1991; Ibarra, 1992 & 1995; Brass, 1995). This makes
communication easier and often more satisfying; however, it is also a source of bias in
what executives learn and think is important. In the example above it was apparent that
the CEO heavily attended to and was influenced by the concerns of the commercial
lending group where he spent the bulk of his career. In private conversations after
reviewing this diagram, he reflected on what he felt were ineffective tendencies in his
own decisions over time due in large part to the biased way he sought information from
others. As a result of the social network analysis of his organization he made more
concerted efforts to balance whom he sought out for information within and outside of
the bank.

Ensuring integration within groups following strategic change initiatives.

SNA can also play a powerful role in assessing the health of informal structure after a
change has been implemented such as an internal restructuring or acquisition. It is well
known that performance does not always improve as anticipated even when technically
sound solutions are implemented. Frequently, this problem is attributed to a
18
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

misalignment somewhere in the organizations formal structure or to failure of

leadership. However, we have consistently found that a lack of social, technical or
organizational support provided to strategically important informal networks is at least as
important a predictor of failure. Very often large-scale change initiatives impair the
effectiveness of established networks while at the same time doing little to help
development of new relationships.
Social network analysis can be a very useful means of assessing the impact of
strategic restructuring initiatives on the informal structure of an organization. For
example, we conducted a social network analysis of the global telecommunications
practice of a major consulting organization. This firm was going through a significant
restructuring initiative to combine the expertise of several groups into one industry
practice in order to compete more effectively with other major consulting organizations.
By combining smaller practices into one global network, partners felt that the firm would
be better able to provide the best and most directly relevant expertise for both sales
initiatives and consulting engagements. Further, significant efficiency benefits were
anticipated as consultants would be able to leverage the work of others in this practice
rather than continually starting from scratch.
Of course deriving these strategic benefits hinged on this groups willingness and
ability to share information and leverage each others expertise. Almost a year after the
initial restructuring the partner leading the practice had become increasingly concerned
that the overall group was not integrating as effectively as it should. However, aside
from some surface level indicators of this problem based on sales and billable hour
metrics, he had no true understanding of his practices integration or where to begin in
19
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

terms of corrective action. The practice was globally distributed and of such size that he
had never even had the opportunity to meet many of the people. To get a better
understanding of this network he invited us in to conduct a social network analysis.
Our SNA confirmed the fragmentation of the network and provided some useful
insights and information to work with in helping integrate his practice. What we
immediately noticed was significant clustering in the network despite the entire practice
reporting to one overall partner and being embedded within a common organizational
context (i.e. strategy, performance metrics, technical infrastructure, etc.). As can be seen
in Exhibit 4, we found three tightly knit sub-groups rather than one integrated network --two in North America and one in Europe. And in fact, apart from the partner, only a
handful of hierarchically lower level employees served to bridge these sub-groups
because they had developed relationships when staffed on projects together.

|Editors Note: Insert Exhibit 4 About Here|

A first intervention for this partner was to use the network diagram to create
common awareness of the lack of integration amongst the leaders of this practice. One of
the more important benefits of social network analysis is that it helps to make visible and
therefore actionable ways that work is occurring within organizations. We have worked
with global groups ranging up to almost 300 people with only 3 or 4 levels of hierarchy.
Clearly the span of control combined with the physical dispersion of such groups makes
it close to impossible for any one person or group of people to know what is going on or
how executive decisions are impacting work and effectiveness of these networks. Social
20
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

network analysis provides a snapshot for executives that can be used to gain agreement
on what problems need to be addressed in such a distributed group, appropriate
interventions to take and an ability to conduct a follow on network analysis to ensure that
initiatives are having the desired impact.
In this case though formal aspects of the organization were aligned, we learned
that there were no initiatives in place to help employees learn others expertise and so
when and how to tap into them. As a result, the organization took a number of steps to
help build this awareness of who knows what. First, they redesigned their approach to
staffing both client projects and internal initiatives to help integrate people from the
different locations. On a technical front they implemented a skill profiling system and a
virtual environment to promote collaboration on consulting engagements. On a social
front, a series of face to face meetings were conducted to help people meet and learn the
projects that other people were working on and the expertise that they held. This was
critical to the groups integration as it was not until people actually met face to face that
the skill profiling system began to be used. Finally, a shift in skills targeted in recruiting
as well as performance measurement was made to encourage joint problem solving and
de-emphasize individual expertise and task accomplishment.
The two groups in the US represented another challenge for management. It
turned out that the majority of people in these two groups not only had offices in the
same building but also were interspersed along the same corridor. What we discovered in
interviews was a political problem that had emerged and resulted in tensions between two
sub-groups. While the partner leading the practice knew there were problems, the visual
representation of the network diagram clearly showed the extent to which these issues
21
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

were impeding the overall group. Various steps were taken to help resolve the problem
including: executive coaching, revised performance management practices and an
extensive off site planning session with organizational development interventions to help
the group integrate.
In addition to altering various aspects of organizational design, other more
pointed interventions unfolded with various people in the network depending on whether
they were highly central or highly peripheral. For example, central people were
interviewed to see if certain aspects of their job could be parceled out to others so that
they were not over-burdened and in danger of becoming a bottleneck. Alternatively,
various approaches were taken with peripheral people to help get them integrated more
effectively (depending on the specific issue that seemed to result in their being
peripheral). A driving concern was helping to develop relationships throughout the
overall practice to improve knowledge sharing and the location of relevant expertise for
both sales efforts and client engagements. Increasing connection within the network also
reduced the extent to which the practice was exposed by the potential of central people
leaving. In this and many other examples we consistently find that a network view makes
it clear that should certain central people in a network leave they take more than just what
they know --- they also fundamentally affect the connectivity of the entire group.

Lessons from the Field

Throughout our research we have consistently found social network analysis a
powerful managerial tool largely because it makes visible patterns of information sharing
within and across strategically important networks. Simply reviewing these diagrams
22
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

with managers usually results in myriad recommendations as people immersed in the

patterns of relationships define and resolve issues impacting group performance. In
short, a picture really is worth a thousand words. Using social network diagrams as
prompts in facilitated sessions can serve to identify issues that are currently hindering a
group and the specific behaviors and organizational design elements requiring
modification to improve group efficiency and effectiveness. Rich discussions will often
evolve simply by showing network diagrams to the members of a group and asking them
to diagnose the patterns they see as well as issues facilitating or impeding their
effectiveness. Often this process simultaneously creates common awareness of problems,
helps define solutions and gains agreement on actions --- all critical steps to effecting
organizational change.
We have consistently found it important for groups to identify and work with
people that are highly central. Often these people are central for legitimate reasons based
on, for example, work flow demands or unique expertise that a person brings to bear.
Alternatively, we also find people that are central and impacting an overall networks
effectiveness by virtue of either becoming overburdened by their job or having a
tendency to hoard information. Network diagrams can help determine who these people
are and what might be done to both allow other connections and work to occur around
them as well as protect the organization should these people decide to go elsewhere.
It is just as important to use the network diagrams (or metrics) to identify
peripheral people and find ways to improve their connection where appropriate. These
people are often under-utilized by the group and are also frequently at the highest risk for
turnover. Given the difficulty in attracting and retaining talented employees today, we
23
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

have found it highly important to find ways to move people into the central part of the
network more quickly. Unfortunately, it is rare to find practices where a new person has
systematic opportunities to know what other people know in the organization and almost
unheard of to find practices that teach the group what new individuals know. This is a
critical shortcoming because as work becomes increasingly project-based, people are
being drawn into the center of these networks primarily as a result of what central people
understand about their knowledge and skills when new opportunities arise.
We have also found social network diagrams to be a powerful tool for individuals
to actively shape their personal networks. While certain managerial decisions and actions
can be important to facilitate development of a network, an equally critical means of
effecting change is for each person in the network to actively work on improving their
own connectivity. Where possible, a key component of our debrief sessions focuses on
getting people to use the network diagrams to assess the effectiveness of their personal
network along two dimensions. First, in terms of composition, we focus on the diversity
within each persons network (e.g., Do you rely too heavily on people from a specific
functional area, hierarchical level or just those that are close to you?). Second, in terms
of content, we focus on the resources that people derive from these relationships (e.g.,
career advice, information or other resources?). Focusing on these two questions
generally helps people recognize a need to invest in the development of specific kinds of
relationships (and often times reduce an investment being made in other relationships).
Of course, social network analysis is not a cure all. In our experience, it is
important to be cautious about over-correcting with groups. One organization we worked
with believed that a group of research scientists would function more efficiently if there
24
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

were greater interaction across geographical regions. As a result, they put in place
several interventions to ensure that members of the department worked more closely with
people in other locations within the organization. After we performed the network
analysis we noticed that as a whole the department had integrated very well across the
various geographical locations but functional units within the department were not well
connected with each other despite sometimes being in the same building. This overcorrection had resulted in a series of effectiveness and efficiency problems for this group.
Thus as managers consider interventions it is important to take a balanced approach and
always realize that improving some connections likely takes time away from the
development and maintenance of others. People have only so much relational energy to
expend.
Conclusion
In todays fast-paced knowledge intensive economy, work of importance is
increasingly accomplished collaboratively through informal networks. As a result,
assessing and supporting strategically important informal networks in organizations can
yield substantial performance benefits. In addition, network relationships are critical
anchoring points for employees, whose loyalty and commitment may be more to sets of
individuals in their network than to a given organization. Our research (and that of
others) has found that these informal networks are increasingly important contributors to
employee job satisfaction and performance. Yet despite their importance, these networks
are rarely well-supported or even understood by the organizations in which they are
embedded. Social network analysis provides a means with which to identify and assess
the health of strategically important networks within an organization. By making visible
25
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

these otherwise invisible patterns of interaction, it becomes possible to work with

important groups to facilitate effective collaboration.
Perhaps just as importantly, social network diagrams often serve to focus
executive attention on informal networks that can be critical to organizational
effectiveness. Scarce resources ranging from funding and technology support on the one
had to executive recognition on the other tend to go to those units that can be found on an
organizational chart. Despite often not being reflective of how work is done,
organizational charts and reporting relationships are the agreed on currency of executive
decision-makers and their trusted advisors. Network diagrams, such as the ones we have
shown here, can be very compelling tools with which to re-focus executive attention on
how organizational design decisions and leadership behaviors impact the relationships
and information flows that are at the heart of how work is done. Our research has
consistently shown that, while social relationships cannot be mandated by management,
they are strongly affected by elements under management control, such as hierarchical
levels, horizontal departments, office location, project staffing, and so on. With social
network analysis, managers have a means of assessing the effects of decisions on the
social fabric of the organization.

26
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

REFERENCES
Allen, T. (1977). Managing the Flow of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Andrews, S. & Knoke, D. (1999). Networks In and Around Organizations. Research
in the Sociology of Organizations, 16. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Baker, W. (1994). Networking Smart: How to Build Relationships for Personal and
Organizational Success. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
---- (2000). Achieving Success Through Social Capital. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups. Journal of
Accoustical Society of America, 22, pp. 725-730.
Boland, R.J.Jr. & Ramkirshnan, V.T. (1995). Perspective Making and Perspective
Taking in Communities of Knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), pp. 350-372.
Boyd, J.P. (1969). The Algebra of Group Kinship. Journal of Mathematical
Psychology 6, pp. 139-167.
Brass, D. (1984). Being in the Right Place: A Structural Analysis of Individual
Influence in an Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, pp. 518-539.
---- (1995). A Social Network Perspective on Human Resources Management. Research
in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, pp. 39-79.
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities-ofPractice; Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation. Organization
Science, 2(1), pp. 40-57.
---- (2000). The Social Life of Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
----- (1997). The Contingent Value of Social Capital. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42, pp. 339-365.
Carley, K. (1991). A Theory of Group Stability. American Sociological Review, 56,
pp. 331-354.
Casciaro, T. (1998). Seeing Things Clearly: Social Structure, Personality and Accuracy
in Social Network Perception. Social Networks, 20, pp. 331-351.
Cohen, D. & Prusak, L. (2000). In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes
Organizations Work. Boston: MA, Harvard Business School Press.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, pp. S95-S120.
27
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large

Firms. Organization Science, 3(2), pp. 179-202.
Durkheim, E. (1893/1933). The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by G. Simpson.
New York: Free Press.
Fiol, C.M. (1994). Consensus, Diversity and Learning in Organizations. Organization
Science, 5(3).
Galbraith, J. (1995). Designing Organizations: An Executive Briefing on Strategy,
Structure, and Process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology,
78, pp. 1360-1380.
Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for
Business Revolution. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Hammer, M. & Stanton, S. (1995). The Reengineering Revolution: A Handbook. New
York, NY: Harperbusiness.
Handy, C. (1994). The Age of Paradox. Boston, MA: HBS Press.
Hansen, M. (1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing
Knowledge Across Organization Sub-Units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, pp.
82-111.
Harary, F. (1969). Graph Theory. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Heckscher, C. (1994). Defining the Post-bureaucratic Type. In C. Heckscher & A.
Donnellon (Eds.) The Post-bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on
Organizational Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hollingshead, A. (1998). Retrieval Processes in Transactive Memory Systems. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 74(3), pp. 659-671.
Hutchins, E. (1991). Organizing Work by Adaptation. Organization Science, 2(1), pp.
14-29.
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network
Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, pp.
471-501.
---- (1995). Race, Opportunity and Diversity of Social Circles in Managerial Networks.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 673-703.

28
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.

Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Krackhardt, D. (1987). Cognitive Social Structures. Social Networks, 9, pp. 109-134.
---- (1990). Assessing the Political Landscape: Structure, Cognition, and Power in
Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 342-369.
---- (1992). The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations.
In N. Nohria and R. Eccles (Eds) Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and
Action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
---- (1994). Constraints on the Interactive Organization as an Ideal Type. In C.
Heckscher & A. Donnellons The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on
Organizational Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Krackhardt, D. & Hanson, J.R. (1993). Informal Networks: The Company behind the
Chart. Harvard Business Review, 71, pp. 104-111.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lazersfeld, P. & Merton, R. (1964). Friendship as a Social Process. In M. Berger
(Ed.) Freedom and Control in Modern Society. New York, NY: Octagon.
Leavitt, H. (1951). Some Effects of Certain Communication Patterns on Group
Performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, pp. 38-50.
Leenders, R. & Gabbay, S. (1999). Corporate Social Capital and Liability. Boston, MA:
Kluwar.
Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, J. (1982). Intra- (And Inter-) Organizational Networks. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations (1), pp. 1-38. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Lincoln, J. & Miller, J. (1979). Work and Friendship Ties in Organizations: A
Comparative Analysis of Relational Networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
pp. 181-199.
March, J. & Olsen, J. (1975). The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning
Under Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3, pp. 147-171.
Marsden, P. (1988). Homogeneity in Confiding Relations. Social Networks, 10, pp. 5776.
McPherson, M, Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in
Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, pp. 415-444.
29
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

Miles, R. & Snow, C. (1986). Network Organizations: New Concepts for New Forms.
California Management Review, 28, pp. 62-73.
---- (1994). Fit, Failure and the Hall of Fame. New York, NY: Free Press.
---- (1995). The New Network Firm: A Spherical Structure Built on a Human
Investment Policy. Organizational Dynamics, 23(4), pp. 5-18.
Mitchell, J.C. (1969). The Concept and Use of Social Networks. In J. Clyde Mitchell
(Ed.) Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchester, UK: Manchester University
Press.
Monge, P., Rothman, L., Eisenberg, E., Miller, K. & Kirste, K. (1985). The Dynamics
of Organizational Proximity. Management Science, 31, pp. 1129-1141.
Monge, P. & Contractor, N. (2000). Emergence of Communication Networks.
Forthcoming in F. Jablin and L. Putnam (Eds.), The Second Handbook of Organizational
Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Monge, P.R. & Eisenberg, E.M. (1987). Emergent Communication Networks. In
Jablin, Putnam, Roberts, Porter (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Communication.
Newbury Park, Sage Publications.
Moreland, R., Argote, L. & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially Shared Cognition at Work:
Transactive Memory and Group Performance. In J. Nye & A. Brower (Eds.) Whats
Social About Social Cognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moreno, J.L. (1934). Who Shall Survive? Washington D.C: Nervous and Mental Disease
Publishing Company.
Nadel, S.F. (1957). The Theory of Social Structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1997). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Creation
of Value in Firms. Academy of Management Review, 22.
Nohria, N. & Eccles R.G. (Eds.). Networks in Organizations: Structure, Form, and
Action. Boston: MA, Harvard Business School Press.
Orr, J.E. (1996). Talking About Machines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Pentland, B.T. (1992). Organizing Moves in Software Support Hot Lines.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), pp. 527-548.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.

30
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

Podolny, J. & Baron, J. (1997). Resources and Relationships: Social Networks and
Mobility in the Workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, pp. 673-693.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th Ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rummler, G. & Brache, A. (1990). Improving Performance: How to Manage the White
Space on the Organization Chart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Shaw, M. (1964). Communication Networks. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology. New York: NY, Academic Press.
Simmel, G. (1922/1955). Conflict and Web of Group Affiliations. Translated by K.H.
Wolff and R. Bendix. New York, NY: Free Press.
Simmel, G. (1923/1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Translated by K.H. Wolff.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Stevenson, W. (1990). Formal Structure and Networks of Interaction within
Organizations. Social Science Research, 19, pp. 113-131.
Stevenson, W. B. & Gilly, M. (1993). Problem-Solving Networks in Organizations:
Intentional Design and Emergent Structure. Social Networks, 22, pp. 92-113.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of
Best Practices Within the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special
Issue), pp. 27-43.
Vaughn, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and
Deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.
Cambridge: UK, Cambridge University Press.
Weick, K. & Roberts, K. (1993). Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating
on Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, pp. 357-381.
Wellman & Berkowitz (1988). Social Structures: A Network Approach. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wenger, E. & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of Practice: The Organizational
Frontier. Harvard Business Review, 137, pp. 139-145.
31
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

White, H.C. (1963). An Anatomy of Kinship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zenger, T. & Lawrence, B. (1989). Organizational Demography: The Differential
Effects of Age and Tenure Distributions on Technical Communication. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, pp. 353-376.

32
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

Exhibit 1
Information Sharing within an Expert Consulting Group7
Pre-Intervention

Post-Intervention (Nine Months Later)

Names were disguised in this example at the request of the organization.

33
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

Exhibit 2
Collaboration Across Merged Divisions within a Conglomerate

Division 1
Division 2
Division 3
Division 4
Division 5
Division 6
Division 7
Division 8

Division
1

Division
2

Division
3

Division
4

33%
5%
11%
2%
6%
7%
1%
10%

76%
18%
11%
7%
2%
3%
2%

45%
21%
12%
13%
16%
9%

38%
6%
7%
6%
6%

Division Division Division Division

5
6
7
8

75%
2%
8%
3%

34
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

76%
2%
10%

36%
0%

90%

Exhibit 3
Collaboration Across Hierarchical Boundaries

CEO

2
Relationships
7
Relationships

Commercial
Lending

1
Relationship
1
Relationship

Real Estate

Credit

35
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

Operations

Exhibit 4
Information Sharing in a Global Consulting Practice

USA 1

Partner

Europe
USA 2

37
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross

Appendix 1
Collecting Network Data: What Questions to Ask
If Trying to Discover

These Kinds of Questions Can Help

Communication network The informal structure of an organization as represented in ongoing patterns of

interaction, either in general or with respect to a given issue.

Rationale To understand the informal structure. It can be particularly helpful to identify sub-groups or
cliques that might represent political problems or individual roles in these networks such as highly central
parties, isolates and bottlenecks.
Information network -- Who goes to whom for advice on work-related matters.
Rationale Just assessing who communicates with whom does not guarantee that the interactions reflect
exchanges of information important to do ones work. Particularly in efforts that require a collective to
effectively pool its knowledge (e.g., new product development), it is important to understand the
effectiveness with which a group traffics in information.

Problem-Solving network Who goes to whom to engage in dialogue that helps people solve problems at
work.

How often do you talk with the following people

regarding <topic x>?
How much do you typically communicate with each
person relative to others in the group?
How frequently have you acquired information
necessary to do your work from this person in the
past month?
Information I receive from this person is useful in
helping to get my work done.
Who do you typically seek work-related information
from?
Who do you typically give work-related information
to?
Who do you typically turn to for help in thinking
through a new or challenging problem at work?
How effective is each person listed below in helping
you to think through new or challenging problems at
work?

Rationale Interactions with other people help us think about important dimensions of problems we are
trying to solve or consequences of actions we are considering. Strong problem solving networks often ensure
that people are solving the right problem thus improving both individual and network performance.
Know network Who is aware of whose knowledge and skills.

Rationale Awareness of what someone else knows dictates whether and for what problems you are likely to
turn to them for help. Strong know networks are an essential basis for strong information networks.
Access network Who has access to whose knowledge and expertise.

How well do you understand this persons

knowledge and skills?

When I need information or advice, this person is

generally accessible to me within a sufficient amount
of time to help me solve my problem.

Rationale Just knowing someone has relevant information or knowledge does not guarantee that they will
share it with you in a way that is helpful. A strong access network is often critical to ensuring effective
information sharing and problem solving in a sufficiently timely fashion.

38
Draft: Do Not Reproduce without Authors Permission
Copyright Rob Cross